Posted
by
Soulskillon Wednesday July 06, 2011 @02:17AM
from the for-the-birds dept.

CWmike writes "In another milestone, the White House will hold its first Twitter town hall forum on Wednesday. President Barack Obama, known for using technology and Web 2.0 tools since his presidential campaign, will answer Twitter users' questions (submit them here) in a live webcast about the U.S. economy and jobs at 2 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. Twitter co-founder and Executive Chairman Jack Dorsey will moderate a conversation between Obama and Twitterers across the country. Twitter users can submit questions using the hashtag #AskObama. Some questions will be taken up in advance and others will be grabbed real-time during the event, Twitter said. In a blog post, Twitter executives said a conversation about the U.S. economy will fit right in with regular Twitter activity."

If he wants any real respect, then yes. Politicians worthy of real respect can admit when something has failed and are willing to stop doing that failed thing and start doing something else.

One may think that getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq and start using part of the defense budget at home would mean enough of a proof.

Contrary to prevailing Slashdot wisdom, multiple unrelated items are rarely mutually exclusive. Mentioning one of them doesn't mean you're against the others. Yet that won't stop someone from chiming in to remind you that you have not mentioned every possible issue concerning each one of their personal pet subjects... Look, marijuana was the subject that had already been mentioned and I merely responded to that. Sorry if I didn't see that as an opportunity to evangelize about each nuance of federal dome

Though if you *really* want to get rid of national debt, and if you're like me in the sense that you want to address the single root of a problem and not the hundreds of side-effects that spring from that root, then you need a currency system that isn't fundamentally based on debt...

This I'd like, though I don't think it is going to happen. You see, in a sane amount, debt is not bad: the problem is when the lifestyle switches totally on "living on the expense of the future" (apres moi, le deluge) and "access to credit is a human right".

However, what is(are) the alternative(s)? Personally, I like some elements in the 2001 winning essay [utopianwc.com] of the Utopian World Competition (warning: quite a long essay, save the reading for leisure time).

The whole problem with the current currency system is that there is always more debt than there are dollars in circulation. If everyone perfectly tried to pay back all debts what would happen is there would be no more money in circulation at all and there would still be debt left over.

It's a deliberately fundamentally broken system. It's designed so that there is only one temporary way out: borrow more money to cover the interest on the debt, and then borrow more money to cover the interest on that, un

What an amazingly useless waste of time, money, and energy. The best way for any president at this point in time to get re-elected would be to get some real fucking work done in the final year of their term instead of campaigning with goofy publicity stunts, like this. I don't want my president spending time twittering or facebooking any more than I want to sit and have a beer with them.

Unfortunately, when the entire opposition party has made their one and only goal your destruction, you can't really do anything about it. They're willing to push the country into default for the first time in history, destroying the lives of millions. You can't negotiate with that sort of hatred.

Obama's not a dictator. He can't "get some real fucking work done" all on his own. The only way this country can get on track is for the Republicans to come to their senses, or for every last one of them to be given the boot. If Obama get's re-elected, maybe the Republicans can finally set aside their hate and work with the guy.

Where have your taxes gone up in the last 10 years. Not Federal or State, your taxes have gone up at the local level or property taxes. These in some cases have doubled mainly because tax cuts have shifted the divided burden of all people and corps. to just the individual tax payer. Yes, there are handouts, which to you and me, is a lot of money but is small change depending on where the money is going. You want to reduce debt, then we can start with cutting 60% out of DOD (to 2000 levels) and getting us ou

Where have your taxes gone up in the last 10 years. Not Federal or State, your taxes have gone up at the local level or property taxes. These in some cases have doubled mainly because tax cuts have shifted the divided burden of all people and corps. to just the individual tax payer. Yes, there are handouts, which to you and me, is a lot of money but is small change depending on where the money is going. You want to reduce debt, then we can start with cutting 60% out of DOD (to 2000 levels) and getting us ou

Err, yes, they are. For instance, David Brooks, who's definitely on the Republican side of the aisle, wrote this just yesterday:

If the debt ceiling talks fail, independents voters will see that Democrats were willing to compromise but Republicans were not. If responsible Republicans don’t take control, independents will conclude that Republican fanaticism caused this default. They will conclude that Republicans are not fit to govern.

And they will be right.

The Democrats have proposed several compromises that are most of what the Republicans wanted plus closing some tax loopholes. The Republicans, Eric Cantor in particular, walked out, and added to their list of demands. Safe to say they aren't interested in dealing.

Drastic cuts to medicare and social security? There are many people that depend on those programs who will be hurt badly. How about cuts to farmers that get paid for growing nothing. Or to prop up producing fuel from corn that only ends up increasing food prices without reducing the carbon footprint due to the energy (from oil!) required to produce it. Fact is there isn't enough we CAN cut to turn the debt cycle around we need to enhance revenue, which means higher taxes aimed at those that can afford t

Scenario: Your spouse rang up 50K in credit card debt and you only make 80K. What do you do?

1. Take away the credit card and cut spending to accelerate debt pay down.
2. Give spouse another credit card and seize a portion of your children's pay check to cover the interest.

These are the basic plans of each party. The debt ceiling has to be raised because the money is already spent. The debate is over how much more to spend and who pays for it. Somehow, they have done a great job convincing you to han

Where did you learn mathematics? From a goat? Because that's all I took away from these statements.

Taxes in this country are so skewed, wrong, dumb, absolutely idiotic that our federal revenue will never be enough to support all the programs we run. The one party that wants to cut spending doesn't want to cut spending from the largest sector (defense), and the one party that wants to make taxes for the rich and for corporations a sane amount is too full of do-nothing, try-hard pussies to get anything

Absolutely. Why do these programs exist at the federal level at all? If you want the government to provide a retirement plan and health insurance for everyone, move to state that has it or try to get it passed in your state.

Fact is there isn't enough we CAN cut to turn the debt cycle around we need to enhance revenue, which means higher taxes aimed at those that can afford to pay them.

That's not true at all. It can be done purely through cuts, but that would necessitate shrinking the size of the federal government. Federal tax revenue has increased by 9% while expenditures have grown 85% since 2001 (chosen since it was the last year receipts covered outlays). I t

Bull, the President and the Democratic Party held the Executive Branch and both houses of the Legislative Branch for two years and pushed only two things, more debt and the worst, most convoluted, ill conceived health care proposal ever attempted.

In the 2010 mid-term the Democrats hemmed and hawed without getting a budget passed which made the House and Senate leadership look like idiots, that all in turn gave the Republicans the House and nearly gave them the Senate.

Nobody ever held the Senate, the Senate is completely dysfunctional. They've decided they need a 60-vote supermajority to pass anything that isn't the budget, so almost nothing gets passed, because neither party has held 60 seats in decades. (If you're about to post that the Democrats did for like six months between when Franken finally got seated and when Ted Kennedy died, you're wrong, because you're counting Joe Lieberman. He isn't a Democrat, he's an independent and he campaigned for John McCain in 2008

The health care bill was ill conceived because the Dems thought that compromising with Reps was going to give them something. It was good in it's "promise stage" but then the compromising started and now it's a toothless piece of toilet paper with the remains of all the benefits going only to the insurance companies.

It's not that Dems would've done it any better if they were alone, they just as well are inside the pockets of the insurance companies but to blame it on either party is just wrong. The blame is

Unfortunately, when the entire opposition party has made their one and only goal your destruction, you can't really do anything about it. They're willing to push the country into default for the first time in history, destroying the lives of millions.

The only people who are saying "default for the first time in history" are Democrats who are fear mongering to scare little girls like you; and it has happened [spectator.org] before. The reality [creditwritedowns.com] is that the United States would not default; the government would use the money it brings in to service the debt and there would be a partial government shutdown.

The only people who are saying "default for the first time in history" are Democrats who are fear mongering to scare little girls like you; and it has happened [spectator.org] before. The reality [creditwritedowns.com] is that the United States would not default; the government would use the money it brings in to service the debt and there would be a partial government shutdown.

The spectator goes on to point out that at the time the dollar was backed by gold. Presently the US dollar is backed by the US dollar, which makes a potential default impossible as the Fed can just print more money.... unless the rest of the world stops using the US dollar as its reserve currency. I'm not an economist or an accountant, but it seems to me that the resulting inflation would make it impossible for the government to service the debt. Again, this hinges on the rest of the world changing res

You can't negotiate with that sort of hatred.... If Obama get's re-elected, maybe the Republicans can finally set aside their hate and work with the guy.

As this video [youtube.com] repeatedly references - the "extreme" Republican right have been publicly heaping praise on Obama's policies for some time now. Hardly "hate", and hardly a sign that they do not wish to work with Obama. You Sir are so far off the mark it is not funny - or a political shill - which is it?Follow the references given [firedoglake.com] everything is on the public record. Convince yourself on un-debatable fact that hardline Republicans have indeed been praising Obama's continuation (and escalation!) of Bush/Cheney

Actually, I think you're proving the point you are trying to disagree with, even though Obama has continued many Republican policies, the Republican right still hates him. What this has shown is that every time the Democrats move a little to the right, the Republicans also move further to the right. Obama implements a Republican health care act, and suddenly it's the worst thing ever. Obama continues Bush's policies on the war on terror and suddenly that's "weak on defence". It goes on and on, as soon a

Yes... and that they are (excuse the tinfoil) in it together to move this country further and further right should concern every citizen of this land, including those on the right. Facism is but the end result of a continual spiral away from center.

Democrats are screaming for higher tax burdens to fund failed social programs that they control (education, healthcare, retirement, family planning etc)

You clearly do not understand what a fascist is. It happens to be an excellent description of the current democrat party.

They support a regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic system.
Are anti-capitalists
Believe in the rule by the Elites
Industrial Management by labor Unions
Social Darwinism
Call for a "progressive biomedic

Whenever a democrat speaks your getting some spin from the truth. One states experiment hardly constitutes a Republican plan but party devotion overrides your honesty and beacons you to echo the talking point no matter how obscene or dishonest.

Most people recoiled at the Health Care Act because no one knew what the fuck was in it or who the fuck wrote it but everyone knew it would affect them in some way. It was also an unprecedented encroachment on what was perceived to be within each States domain.

Sorry, bub, I'm a neutral observer. I don't like in your screwed up country. I have my preference for rational, intelligent policies, but other than that I have no affiliation or loyalty to your political groups. I'm not repeating dishonest talking points, but rather pointing out that the health care act was largely based on proposals floated by previous Republican presidential candidates.

My impression is that the goal was to quickly and painless end the problem of uninsured Americans. Obviously that di

side of the aisle did when their guy was not in the top position? It seems to me that if you go back years and years all you see is that the opposition party does their best to undermine the guy at the top when he is not theirs. Hell, even when he is theirs they do it. Obama had two years of Democrat majorities and he got what? Oh, that's right, used as a puppet by his own party.

He also won't get work done unless he decides to lead. Trouble is, sometime earlier this year he went back into campaign mode. In

Opposing raising the debt limit is destroying millions of lives? Here is what Obama said when he was senator (emphasis mine):

The fact that we're here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means 'The buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit.

When Bush was in office, Democrats strongly opposed raising the debt limit, because it's something not many people like (do you like the debt? Really?) Now Republicans feel the country is on their side in this issue, which is why they feel they can avoid compromise and not lose votes (and they are correct to a degree: most Americans don't want to raise the debt limit, and most America

A leader who cannot face the questions of his constituents and provide them with answers that they accept is an authoritarian, not a democrat.

And yes, I realize that the questions are filtered so that this will end up being more of a public relations exercise. But that is still a heck of a lot better than the leaders of some nations who refuses to be questioned at all. Here's to you Mr. Harper (Prime Minister of Canada, for ye foreigners.)

Really?
The budget deficit is through the roof, economy is declining, jobs are being lost and the presidents main concern should be legalizing drugs?

Think of all the money that could be saved by stopping the war on drugs (law enforcement, prisons). Think of the potential productivity of all those people in jail convicted of victimless "crimes". Think of all the tax income from the legal sale of drugs.

All in all, legalization is a simple step that helps address the problems you bring up.

Really? The budget deficit is through the roof, economy is declining, jobs are being lost and the presidents main concern should be legalizing drugs?

This seems to be a popular rationalization/argument among Obama defenders: he really wants to legalize marijuana, it's just that all those more serious issues keep getting in the way. But there is no reason why he can't try to legalize marijuana at the same time as he works on all those other issues. Most progressives would be perfectly happy just to hear him say that he is in favor of legalization, he doesn't even need to put any effort into it. But if he really wanted to work at it (i.e. write a bill a

While I don't agree with the way people are treated for minor drug offenses in America, I think there are more important things to handle than dealing with that particular issue. Further, drug violence and organized crime wouldn't suddenly disappear if you legalized pot, you'd have to legalize all illicit substances across the board. Good luck with that.

Because he is a politician. That's not a bad thing. You can't get elected without being one, so if you have good ideas and want to help your country, you better learn how to be political. Announcing support for medical marijuana would just give the right-wing hate mongers more ammunition, without actually accomplishing anything. Without super-majority control of Congress, it's impossible to pass anything. That's not how the system is supposed to work, but there it is.

What I'd like to know, is why he keeps dodging the question of medical marijuana when it's THE most requested question...

From what I've seen he hasn't been dodging the question at all, he's just not giving you the answer you want. He has flat out stated [cbsnews.com] more than once that he is against legalizing marijuana.

Exactly. But that's just what this is going to turn into.. one big "legalize it, maaan!" festival. Despite what you said.

Obama is not giving the "legalize it" crowd the answers that they want to hear, so they stick their fingers in their ears and ask it louder.

We can't even get alcohol laws right in this country. Why do people think Obama can just wiggle a pen and make marijuana legal in all 50 states? He's said he wanted to leave it up to the states, and even pot friendly California has been seeing what ca

I fail to see the significance of this. It's just another town hall meeting, except the questions are being submitted via Twitter. That's newsworthy? There are plenty of more efficient methods of gathering questions. It's like that whole push-to-talk craze 10 years ago. "Hey, I got a great idea, full-duplex communication is nice, but half-duplex is even better!"

The BBC uses Twitter during its Question Time programme that gets a few million viewers. There are usually several tweets per second, far too fast for anyone to read or respond to. People resort to re-tweeting the same thing over and over again just to be heard.

In a room full of journalists they have to pick one to ask questions and have everyone else shut up. Try doing that on Twitter.

And that is, of course, why they are doing this. They will be able to answer any questions they want, because all the possible questions they might want to answer will be asked (and they can always stuff the box if they aren't) and yet they can't possibly have time to answer all the questions. That way, when the change.org debacle is repeated, they will have an excuse for not addressing the #1 question. Perhaps they will also "accidentally" drop some of THOSE questions by keyword.

Bread and Circuses: bribe the population with free bread and distract them with circuses whilst the ruling classes do whatever they want.

In this case Obama is seeking to distract the US from the fact he's renaged on all of his campaign promises, Gitmo is still open for business, the PATRIOT act was renewed (dishonestly snuck through Congress by a Democrat) and the US will be defaulting on it's debts any time now (whilst members of congress invest in funds that will make money when the US goes bust).

You are spot on with that. Also a big part of the reason he won in 2008 was from the "youth vote", so I think this whole Twitter thing is trying to appeal to them (and hopefully make them forget that he is basically just George W. Obama)

Really? Since when does the 'population' use Twitter? I've been in IT since 2001 and even I stay clear of that medium. Take a step back outside your web 2.0 bubble and look around you at your family, when you're riding the train or the bus, or at the museum. The majority of people don't know what Twitter is, let alone what a hashtag is.

I agree with most of your points but you're simply using this as a thin veil to turn this into a partisan disagreement, just like every other political argument online.

In Europe our main stream political parties are all more left-leaning than either of the US parties. In essence the US has two right-wing parties who are, in all the important ways, indistinguishable to anyone outside of the US.

As far as I can tell the only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that the latter includes witches.;)

I'm not an American nor do I live in the US. I consider myself a liberal. From my perspective, Obama must be the worst president you ever had, based on the expectations he had to live up to. This is arguable in many ways by his supporters, but can you argue that there is not much "change"?

Could someone from the US enlighten us on exactly where is the change? And I mean change for the better obviously. From across the pond we see more wars being fought, more radicalization and more drug wars, whilst fewer pe

@ACHaving lived in the US I can tell you that the problems you mentioned aren't actually that of the President's, but of the general populous. The entire economy and country is going to shit and it's a foundational problem with our core beliefs here in the US. It starts in school born out of initial social groups and anti-intellectualism. One could argue that we could change the schools to focus more on intellectual ability, but when you have extroverted people running the schools this is the sort of thing

The basic story that you're after but didn't quite say: The US is right now a society that does not value the ability to separate fact from fiction.

There are a lot of reasons for this, and you touch on some of them, but that's the fundamental issue. Some of the reasons you don't get into:* Even among the nerdy intellectual types, most people are not taught how to dissect an argument and see if it holds water. And I include a lot of academics in this, mostly concentrated in the humanities and social sciences

I think all of these issues tie together into this massive anti-intellectualism movement in the US. You are certainly correct on not being able to think independently (and challenge the status quo) in addition to people not being taught how to dissect arguments and even defend their own points.

The middle and noble classes feared the Mob. The Plebeians outnumbered everyone else, they would vote in a bloc and they'd disrupt the commercial and infrastructure of the city. That doesn't happen in the modern United States and really hasn't happened since the Civil Rights/Vietnam War era.

The Congress and President doesn't fear the people, so they don't have to fix what's broken.

In this case Obama is seeking to distract the US from the fact he's renaged on all of his campaign promises, Gitmo is still open for business, the PATRIOT act was renewed (dishonestly snuck through Congress by a Democrat) and the US will be defaulting on it's debts any time now (whilst members of congress invest in funds that will make money when the US goes bust).

How this got modded interesting is beyond me. Are we just up modding any historical reference whether it makes a lick of sense or not? I'm not an Obama fan but this comparison is so wrong it's embarrassing. You're actually claiming that the president is hosting a discussion about jobs, the deficit and the economy in order to pull a "bread and circus" act to distract people from important issues like jobs, the deficit, and the economy? The cognitive dissonance that must be required to either claim or up mo

This is in no way a discussion. It's pure and simple media manipulation. They'll screen the questions, or have specific ones they've set up with canned answers. To believe otherwise is simply naive. And this isn't a slam against Obama...it's political posturing.

All modern press Q&A involve the president picking not only whose questions he'll answer, but who is allowed to be there. If you think this twitter conference is bread and circuses, I'm sorry to inform you we've been at the circus for awhile.

Really slashdot, I expect this crap from the comment sections of MSNBC and FOX news. Not from here. I've been reading since 1998. It's only 50 comments right now, I expect that to balloon to 700 or so with flame wars abound. Rather than having a pissing contest, how about we discuss the use of technology by the president (an office that still deserves some respect)? I think it's a fine use of this new fangled Web 2.0 BS that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

perhaps everyone on slashdot should send him a twitter message about software patents? It seems like an issue that everyone here is concerned about, and maybe if enough people get on him about it, we'll actually see something done.